Mudbound

Or PTSD as it is also called. Although here you have more of a Welcoming Stress Disorder ... because while in war, the skin color did not matter, back at home (in the US) for some it more than mattered. You may not feel comfortable with what certain people are doing here - but they all have their "reasons" (or at least education and prejudices they grew up with) why ... not that it hurts less what they do.

An interesting look and a friendship build over something horrific two of the characters went through ... and also showing how little certain groups of people had to say. Still to this day in some regions for sure - and why that matters and why it should not be that way anymore. A good drama with a lot of good actors in it. Not an easy watch by any stretch of the imagination though ...

If there were ever a film that sums up the phrase 'mixed bag', then Mudbound is surely it. Ranging from emotionally devastating and harrowing drama to downright tedious periods of nothingness, this is one of the most inconsistent films you'll ever see, and although its highest points prove utterly enthralling and truly memorable, its lowest offer next to nothing in terms of riveting drama. Its performances are strong and its directing confident, but that doesn't escape the fact that this film is just a real mixed bag.

Let's start with the film's opening act, which is one of the most boring and frustrating hours I've spent watching a film. Starting off with a confusing and poorly executed opening scene, the film really fails to pick itself up over the course of its whole first hour, doing little more than to establish some of the main characters and the hardships of the muddy, isolated rural community, things that could have surely been done just as effectively in a good ten minutes.

For the duration of the whole first act, it's pretty difficult to tell what the end game of the movie actually is. For one, you've got the story of a young woman whose marriage allowed her to escape her dull family, and who also is deeply frustrated with the muddiness and poverty-stricken nature of her current life. Then there's some detailing of the horrific levels of racism in 1940s Mississippi, with the family's grandfather being the main example for some nasty remarks throughout. There's also a young black man who goes off to war, who we occasionally check in with during his battles in Europe, while we also see the brother of the central white family flying in the Air Force during the war.

As you can tell by that very bungled description, the film's first act is an absolute mess. There's very little way to tell what the main story is, and what you should really be focusing on for the biggest emotional intrigue, and that, coupled with the fact that it moves at a deathly slow pace, makes it a very frustrating and extremely tedious first hour.

However, things really do pick up come the second act. Upon seeing the two men return to Mississippi from the war, the film's central focus finally comes to the forefront, and we immediately get a very tense exchange between the racist grandfather and the African-American war veteran. That's undoubtedly one of the film's highest points, and sets up the atmosphere of deep racial tensions well, finally giving the film at least a continuing and consistent tension under the surface, something that was completely absent from its first act.

The second act then goes into looking at how different generations respond to the institutionalised racism, while also shedding light on how horrifically unjust some of the hardships suffered by so many hard-working African-Americans were at the time, which proves for an interesting, albeit never quite powerful watch. The film's middle portion is a great insight into the time period, and holds your attention throughout, but it never quite manages to hit you hard enough as a film telling such a story should do.

And then comes the film's final act, which is exceptional. For the final thirty minutes or so, the devastating reality of racism in the past is brought brutally into focus, and it makes for a deeply disturbing and uncomfortable but powerfully moving watch. With the film's tension at its height, it doesn't hold back in displaying some truly horrifying scenes, some of which are easily the most intense and powerful I have ever seen in a film dealing with the topic.

The final act is directed brilliantly, being frank and brutally realistic in its depiction of injustice, and moving along at a slow but tense pace to emphasise some truly horrible acts, all the while maintaining a strong dignity that allows the deeper, emotional side of the sequences to shine through too, all of which makes it simply astonishing to see.

It's fair to say then, given the huge range of comments I have for this film, ranging from total boredom to transfixing and hard-hitting emotion, that Mudbound is a very inconsistent mixed bag, however there is one element to it that works well from start to finish: the performances.

The wide range of characters in the first act does make its story somewhat muddled, but each of the actors really shines in bringing their own character to life. Carey Mulligan is very strong and convincing as a young mother frustrated with her life in poverty, Garrett Hedlund and Jason Mitchell are both charismatic young men, meaning that their relationship really shines when it's on display, while Jonathan Banks is excellent as the terrifyingly racist old man, bringing a powerful tension into the film every time he walks into a room.

Overall, then, it's pretty clear that Mudbound isn't a resoundingly successful movie. At times an interesting insight into racism and injustice in the Deep South in the 40s, at others a tedious slog of randomly muddled drama and characters, and at others an astonishingly powerful, hard-hitting and truly memorable (dare I say it, even Oscar- worthy) drama, it's a very inconsistent and overall frustrating film. However, with its strong performances all the way through and exceptional drama at points, it is a memorable watch.

With Mudbound, a tale of two families in good(terrible) ol' Mississippi in the 1940s and the daily struggles for the men and women getting by in the most rural elements imaginable, I wanted to like it more, even love it. The period feel and authenticity Rees and her team have makes an impression and it's all surely lived in to where you feel the pain and literal dirt for white and blacks (so, in other words, a brief mention of 'A Tale of Two Cities' has textual resonance).

But the first half is rough going with way overdone narration, with too much that gives more information and dictating character beats than near necessary, robbing moments of poetry and grace. It almost gives the impression of a tougher/rougher shot yet far less eloquent version of The Southerner by Renoir. Not bad but not... Cinematic enough. It feels too literal a translation of a book (and it is an adaptation of one, unread by me).

Yet, once Hedlund and Mitchell, who don't get too developed before they go off to war and only get some in the scenes when they're in battle (all done in brutal and brief bites), come home from the war, the drama all around gets intensified. The narration gives way to emotional scenes between characters - or just conversations showing an understanding that wouldn't have happened if not ironically for the horrors of war- and all the acting by everyone goes to 100 (Jonathan Banks shows a much... "Poppy" kind of side to his talents).

It may be more of a history lesson than anything else, but the intimacy Rees has with her performers gets the material to its peak too. If you aren't sure of where it's going, or want Rees to stick to the farm scenes and not cut back to the war, just wait and the patience will pay off.

A good and extremely well acted film. It is really the netflix film that could make the difference in terms of awards recognition. It is not your typical racism film as it tells another side of it. It is about two young men who would never be in any way friends if it wasn't for one thing they have in common. Both are war veterans and return home with a trauma. One is the son of a farm aid, the other is the brother of the owner of the farm. But it is not the only story this ensemble piece tells. The acting is the best reason to see the film. Rob Morgan was the MVP for me. It was a performance that worked way beneath his dialogue. A very deep and moving character and he managed it absolutely realistic. Jason Mitchell was great as well, especially towards the end. He has for sure the battiest role. Garrett Hedlund comes right after with a very controlled and intense turn. He surely is underrated for his acting, I also liked Mary J. Blige who had some great small moments, but after all the buzz I expected something more intense. Much of her performance works through her expressions which were great and real. Carey Mulligan and Jonathan Banks were great as well. Jason Clarke had his moments but was possibly the weakest of the bunch, but that was mostly because of his pale character, The film was extremely well shot, nicely directed and had a great screenplay. At the beginning it dragged a little bit but it is definitely worth to see and the ending is extremely intense, shocking and memorable. And the final scene has to be one of the most beautiful scenes of the year.

Racism, war, violence, female solidarity … however relevant these subjects are, they seem rather exhausted on a cinematic level especially when the Awards season starts.

Indeed, on the simple basis of its trailer, one would believe that "Mudbound" is simply Netflix making its "Color Purple", "Mississippi Burning" or "12 Years a Slave". Maybe. But there is something fresh and original in Dee Rees' adaptation of Hillary Jordan's novel and it's a considerable achievement that owes a lot to the writing, the directing and the unusual structure and patient pace of the film. Sure it is a companion to all the movies I mentioned but it has a sort of haunting quality, something that sticks to your mind and dwarfs a rather good film like "The Help".

What is "Mudbound" about? That's not an easy question to answer, a few negative critics pointed out the film's lack of focus because it's a multi-character story and there's no lead or supporting roles at first stance, just as they criticized the overuse of voice-over. I didn't mind the voice-over much, the story is so complex and multi-layered that I'd rather have a voice-over explaining things and make it my 'privilege' to pay or not pay attention to it. The lack of focus now is just a matter of half-empty or half-full glass. But here's a way to present the film in simpler terms. "Mudbound" is about two families, the McAllans (white) and the Jacksons (black) living in two neighboring farms in the Mississippi of the 40's.

Laura (Carey Mulligan) married Henry McAllan (Jason Clarke), less moved by love than a desire to escape from her "old maid" condition, and marital life made her feel relevant and important. Henry isn't the romantic type but no bad man either, and I was glad the movie didn't take one path I expected. No, it's not about that kind of abuse. The McAllans are a steady couple and the Jacksons form a united clan whose patriarch Hap (Rob Morgan) is the descendant of former slaves who worked on that same land, Hap's dreams is to own it in the future although he's not fooled by the worth of any act of property in that racist state. The Jacksons might strike as too 'virtuous' and taking very solemn poses but once you get drawn by the atmosphere and the hostility they constantly face, you realize that "disunion" couldn't be an option. Hap and his wife Florence (Oscar- worthy Mary J. Blige) can't afford the luxury of not being at least "happy together".

But the film doesn't venture yet in these unsafe territories; the tone is only set with the presence of Henry's father: Pappy McAllan, a bigoted racist played by Jonathan Banks and whom we suspect will act like a ticking bomb. Henry buys a farm and Laura follows him, circumstances of life will force Florence to work for the McAllans, but as long as these two families mind their own business, so to speak, nothing seem ready to create conflicts. Except for what sets up the second act of the film, the second World War. The merit of "Mudbound" is to paint notable differences at first until you realize that the two families have a lot more in common. This 'common denominator' is the core of "Mudbound": the bond between the two veterans of each family: Henry's brother Jamie (Garrett Hedlund) and Ronsel Jackson (Jason Mitchell). Here are two men who've seen hell in Europe, the things we expect and that are not overplayed, but they also lived the exhilaration of liberating countries and discovering a fraternity that transcends racial barriers.

"Mudbound" breaks a taboo seldom explored by the movies: the hypocritical treatment of Black soldiers. America takes pride for having liberated Europe but not to the point of questioning the internal "prisons", and this is the concealed wound the film tries to heal. Ronsel is the most complex of all the characters because he embraced his country's idealism and couldn't believe he wouldn't be rewarded for it. Jamie suffers from PTSD and finds in Ronsel the only man capable to understand him, "Mudbound" began like the stories of two women, Laura and Florence who were growing to understand each other, a sort of "Color Purple" of the 2010's, directed by a woman and with enough narrative to play like a feminist hymn, but no, this is a movie about two men, Ronsel and Jamie who grow to respect each other because they found in the mud of the battle-fight the universally human bond. You know what that movie truly reminded me of? "The Defiant Ones".

The image that immediately comes to mind from that Stanley Kramer's masterpiece of 1958 is Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier as two ex-convicts chained together and escaping from the police. They hate each other, they still carry some bits of racism but the first display of solidarity happens when they're stuck in a deep pool of mud and must climb their way to the ground. Mud isn't just about dirt or about ground but can be a powerful metaphor of something uniting two men, a metaphor for an even dirtier stuff, when "natural enemies" discover they're equally worthless when put in the same 'mud'... unless they try to overcome it. "Mudbound" carries this image but it's less about 'mud' than it is about a color-blind "bound". The mud is either literal in the film or represented by the trauma of war… and also the suffering of women, while not the focus, "Mudbound" has a saying on that subject as well.

"Mudbound" is a proof that Netflix is becoming a major contender in the years to come, I don't know whether the film will meet with Oscar recognition but there should be some love to the haunting cinematography, the screenplay and Mary J. Blige should be a lock if Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis won for what I believe are lesser movies.